Random observations from a US lawyer
Warning: Non-lawyers should skip this post at risk of extreme boredom. Lawyers might find it boring too. Sorry about that.
Anyhow, I'm noticing that many of the Mongolian laws and legal procedures are similar to those in the US system. However, the differences are fun to consider:
Mongolian trial judges normally hear cases in panels of three, with one judge designated as the lead judge. The panel reaches its decision when at least 2 of the 3 agree.
“Citizen representatives” play a role similar to that of jurors in the US system. They listen to the case and ask questions; however, they have no decision making authority and only can make recommendations to the judges.
The Mongolian law of the courts requires the court system to pay for each judge’s round-trip travel to a “domestic sanatorium” biannually.
Below is a shot of the public access station at the supreme court. Currently, every court in Mongolia has a clerk with a pc to assist court customers. Before these stations were established a few years ago, there were no customer service counters and no way for the public to access case information.
The law guarantees each judge a minimum of 14 days per year for continuing legal education.
The supreme court gives an award (with a prize) each year for “best court.”
Until fairly recently, appellate judges could review and alter the decisions of lower court judges even though the parties had not appealed. (That must have been quite a surprise to the parties!). Appellate court judges still review trial court decisions without an appeal, but instead of changing the result they just tell the trial court judges what mistakes they made (the law refers to this practice as giving “professional guidance” to the trial court).
Victims have the right to a lawyer, and the right to appeal the criminal case.
Until recently, supreme court decisions were not published. This was not a major problem because trial court judges are not obligated to follow the decisions or reasoning set out in appellate court decisions. Rather, they look to “official interpretations” of the laws that are set out by the supreme court. These interpretations supply a uniform understanding and correct application of the law.
A separate Constitutional Court (tsets) is responsible for interpreting the constitutionality of the laws. Questions of constitutional interpretation can be brought by citizens, government officials, or sua sponte by the court itself.
Anyhow, I'm noticing that many of the Mongolian laws and legal procedures are similar to those in the US system. However, the differences are fun to consider:
Mongolian trial judges normally hear cases in panels of three, with one judge designated as the lead judge. The panel reaches its decision when at least 2 of the 3 agree.
“Citizen representatives” play a role similar to that of jurors in the US system. They listen to the case and ask questions; however, they have no decision making authority and only can make recommendations to the judges.
The Mongolian law of the courts requires the court system to pay for each judge’s round-trip travel to a “domestic sanatorium” biannually.
Below is a shot of the public access station at the supreme court. Currently, every court in Mongolia has a clerk with a pc to assist court customers. Before these stations were established a few years ago, there were no customer service counters and no way for the public to access case information.
The law guarantees each judge a minimum of 14 days per year for continuing legal education.
The supreme court gives an award (with a prize) each year for “best court.”
Until fairly recently, appellate judges could review and alter the decisions of lower court judges even though the parties had not appealed. (That must have been quite a surprise to the parties!). Appellate court judges still review trial court decisions without an appeal, but instead of changing the result they just tell the trial court judges what mistakes they made (the law refers to this practice as giving “professional guidance” to the trial court).
Victims have the right to a lawyer, and the right to appeal the criminal case.
Until recently, supreme court decisions were not published. This was not a major problem because trial court judges are not obligated to follow the decisions or reasoning set out in appellate court decisions. Rather, they look to “official interpretations” of the laws that are set out by the supreme court. These interpretations supply a uniform understanding and correct application of the law.
A separate Constitutional Court (tsets) is responsible for interpreting the constitutionality of the laws. Questions of constitutional interpretation can be brought by citizens, government officials, or sua sponte by the court itself.
posted by Susanne D. at 4:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home